[nige1]

Basic no-frills 2/1. (No Gazzilli). 1N reply to a major is non-forcing.
At match-pointed pairs, how strong is the 2N rebid in the uncontested auction 1♥-1N-; 2N
Is it invitational or (virtually) game-forcing?

[paulg]

nige1, on 2011-March-22, 08:14, said:

Is it invitational or (virtually) game-forcing?

In the thread that this came from I did not understand the difference between these two classifications. The bid shows a hand too strong for 1NT and too weak for a 2NT opener in a basic system. Given that this means 18-19 points, it is invitational and virtually game-forcing.

But 'virtually game-forcing' is very different from forcing, because when the bid is forcing 2NT may include other hands. But not under the conditions of 'basic system' that you have set.

[aguahombre]

The answer is the same (18-19) regardless. but the system description is contradictory.

1NT is non-forcing in Standard.

1NT forcing is not a frill in 2/1, it is the component which allows 2/1 bids to be game forcing.

[awm]

I'd say a good 17 to 19.

With 15 points, you should not bid 2NT; you will reach too many bad 2NT contracts on 15 opposite 6 and bad 2NT contracts on 15 opposite 8. You should rebid your longer minor instead (or open 1NT in the first place).

With 16 points, you really should open 1NT. This exact point count is difficult to show otherwise, because it's easy to get too high if you rebid 2NT (16 opposite 6, or game on 16 opposite 8). Of course, it's also easy to miss a game if you rebid two-minor (partner corrects to 2♥ and if you bid on you have the same issues as if you rebid 2NT; if you pass you could miss game on 16 opposite 9 or 10).

With 17 points, it's fine to upgrade a bit and rebid 2NT if you don't want to open 1NT.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-22, 09:52, said:

The answer is the same (18-19) regardless. but the system description is contradictory.
1NT is non-forcing in Standard.
1NT forcing is not a frill in 2/1, it is the component which allows 2/1 bids to be game forcing.

Thank you, Aquahombre
it seems that many British partnerships (including some of mine) are misdeclaring their basic system

[mike777]

around 16.
not 18-19

[paulg]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-22, 09:52, said:

1NT forcing is not a frill in 2/1, it is the component which allows 2/1 bids to be game forcing.

A forcing 1NT is certainly a fundamental component of traditional 2/1. However I always believed that the principal reason for the bid to be forcing was to distinguish between 3- and 4-card major suit raises, especially for a limit raise.

Many pairs now use a different response structure to make this distinction which allows them to play 1NT as non-forcing, described as semi-forcing in the ACBL. This variant is more popular in Nigel's circles.

[phil_20686]

I play that to make an invitational 2NT bid you start by bidding a 3 card minor and then bid 2N over the expected false preference. That is how I would bid a 15-16 5422 hand, or a 5332 hand that for some reason I decided not to open 1NT. I play the direct 2N bid as GF and can contain different hands. In particular I play 1H-1n-3m as GF 5-5, so GF 54 hands, and 18-19 balanced hands, and single suited hands too strong for 3M rebid, all bid 2NT. TBH I am happy to GF on 18-19 balanced. Its so rare that you want to play in 2N when you have 18-19 balanced and a 5cM.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2011-March-22, 09:21, said:

In the thread that this came from I did not understand the difference between these two classifications. The bid shows a hand too strong for 1NT and too weak for a 2NT opener in a basic system. Given that this means 18-19 points, it is invitational and virtually game-forcing. But 'virtually game-forcing' is very different from forcing, because when the bid is forcing 2NT may include other hands. But not under the conditions of 'basic system' that you have set.

Ying raised this question on Sunday at the Carlton so we agreed to post it here. Paulg is referring to "Ruling in a European Junior Competition" but those circumstances were different.

[mtvesuvius]

INV, (16)17-18ish

[nigel_k]

It is stronger than a 1NT opening and weaker than a 2NT opening, so 18-19 after upgrading. But you are quite likely to have an upgrade since you have a five card suit so some 17 HCP hands will be too good for 1NT and some 19 HCP hands will be good enough for 2NT.

The way I play it is not forcing, or game forcing, or virtually game forcing, or any other kind of forcing. I would nearly always pass it with a balanced 6 HCP, and sometimes with 7 HCP. A strong hand opposite a weak hand with no fit will struggle to produce 9 tricks with 25 combined HCP and it's matchpoints. I would also respond 1NT routinely with 5 HCP and could have less sometimes.

[whereagles]

Classically it's a balanced 18-19. If responder bids now, it's GF. Pass is the only weak bid.

Other bal hands bid as follows:

12-14: rebid 2m on 3 cards and pass pard's preference.
15: same as above. Odds for making game are too slim to invite.
16-17: rebid 2m and follow-up with 2NT.
20+: open 2NT

Note 1: alternatively you can open 1NT on 15-17 hands.

Note 2:

1M 1NT
3NT

is open in this scheme. It can be used as 20-22 if you don't like opening 2NT on 5 card majors, but most play it as a strongish 6322 with stops.

[helene_t]

If opener's suit is spades it is convenient that is shows 18-19 since otherwise you have the issue whether
1♠-1NT
2NT-3♥
is forcing or not.

If opener's suit is hearts, either is playable, but I think it is better to bid a minor 3-card suit with 16-17. With AQx-AKxxx-xxx-Kx you may prefer to fake a 2♠ reverse if you don't want to open 1NT.

Playing 2NT as 18-19 also frees up the 3NT rebid for hands with with a 6-card major and 18-19 points, although it a kind of blame transfer as it may not be so easy for responder to decide between 3N and 4M.

[nige1]

I am grateful for the votes and comments. The consensus seems to be 17-19. (Presumably 17 if too strong for 1N).

[Lurpoa]

nige1, on 2011-March-22, 08:14, said:

Basic no-frills 2/1. (No Gazzilli). 1N reply to a major is non-forcing.
At match-pointed pairs, how strong is the 2N rebid in the uncontested auction 1♥-1N-; 2N
Is it invitational or (virtually) game-forcing?

Surely inviting.
regular hand with 5card ♥ and 16+,17,18 HP.
Some partnerships will open 2NT on some of those hands.

[JLOGIC]

nigel_k, on 2011-March-22, 13:18, said:

It is stronger than a 1NT opening and weaker than a 2NT opening.

/thread. Was going to post this word for word.

[Bbradley62]

It completely depends on whether your partnership routinely opens 1NT with a 5card major. If you do, then it is clear that 1H-1S-2N shows a hant too strong to open 1NT and not strong enough to open 2NT, usually 18-19. If you do not routinely open 1NT with a 5card major, then your rebid choices of 1NT and 2NT over partner's 1S must include the entire 12-19 range. In that case, 1H-1S-1N would show something like 12-15HCP and 1H-1S-2N would be about 16-19HCP.

[nigel_k]

I don't think it does depend on whether you open 1NT with a five card major. I prefer a style where you can choose based on honour location.

It's good to have at most a three point range for 1NT and a two point range for 2NT. Certainly a four point range for 2NT seems far too wide and I have heard there are some people out there opening 1♥ with a balanced 11 HCP, so if you are one of them you may be looking at a five point range for 1NT as well.

If the 1NT rebid is 11-14 you have to rebid a three card minor with 15-17 balanced. Alternatively, which I slightly prefer, rebid 1NT with 15-17 and rebid a three card minor with the weaker hands.

[aguahombre]

I lost the thread when I read about rebidding 1NT after responder bids a forcing NT to our 1M.

[Phil]

17+ - 19-.

I hate the idea of using 2N as a 15-17 hand just because I wasn't enlightened enough to open 1N with a 5 card major. I also dislike the idea of 'stretching' ranges like 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N as 12-15 and 2N as 16-18 or something like that.

If I played with a partner who hated opening 1N with a 5 card major, then I'd fudge with 2m over 1N. However, I much prefer playing a semi forcing NT, which complicates this.